[88] The following passage from Cicero may serve to illustrate the doctrine of Pliny: “Novem tibi orbibus, vel potius globis, connexa sunt omnia: quorum unus est cœlestis, extimus, qui reliquos omnes complectitur, summus ipse Deus, arcens et continens cœlum;” Som. Scip. § 4. I may remark, however, that the term here employed by our author is not _Deus_ but _Numen_. [89] We have an interesting account of the opinions of Aristotle on this subject, in a note in M. Ajasson’s translation, ii. 234 _et seq._, which, as well as the greater part of the notes attached to the second book of the Natural History, were written by himself in conjunction with M. Marcus. [90] The philosophers of antiquity were divided in their opinions respecting the great question, whether the active properties of material bodies, which produce the phænomena of nature, are inherent in them, and necessarily attached to them, or whether they are bestowed upon them by some superior power or being. The Academics and Peripatetics generally adopted the latter opinion, the Stoics the former: Pliny adopts the doctrine of the Stoics; see Enfield’s Hist. of Phil. i. 229, 283, 331. [91] I may remark, that the astronomy of our author is, for the most part, derived from Aristotle; the few points in which they differ will be stated in the appropriate places. [92] This doctrine was maintained by Plato in his Timæus, p. 310, and adopted by Aristotle, De Cœlo, lib. ii. cap. 14, and by Cicero, De Nat. Deor. ii. 47. The spherical form of the world, οὐρανὸς, and its circular motion are insisted upon by Ptolemy, in the commencement of his astronomical treatise Μεγάλη Σύνταξις, Magna Constructio, frequently referred to by its Arabic title Almagestum, cap. 2. He is supposed to have made his observations at Alexandria, between the years 125 and 140 A.D. His great astronomical work was translated into Arabic in the year 827; the original Greek text was first printed in 1538 by Grynæus, with a commentary by Theon. George of Trebisond published a Latin version of it in 1541, and a second was published by Camerarius in 1551, along with Ptolemy’s other works. John Muller, usually called Regiomontanus, and Purback published an abridgement of the Almagest in 1541. For an account of Ptolemy I may refer to the article in the Biog. Univ. xxxv. 263 _et seq._, by Delambre, also to Hutton’s Math. Dict., _in loco_, and to the high character of him by Whewell, Hist. of the Inductive Sciences, p. 214. [93] See Ptolemy, _ubi supra_. [94] This opinion, which was maintained by Pythagoras, is noticed and derided by Aristotle, De Cœlo, lib. ii. cap. 9. p. 462-3. A brief account of Pythagoras’s doctrine on this subject is contained in Enfield’s Philosophy, i. 386.